• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Politics of Global Warming

Free episodes:

Best Of Enemies - Official Trailer
TEXT: "Published on Jun 9, 2015: 2 Men. 10 Debates. Television would never be the same. Watch the trailer for Best of Enemies featuring the explosive debates between liberal Gore Vidal and conservative William F. Buckley Jr. Available in theatres July 10th from Magnolia Pictures."​
I have seen the above documentary twice in the past week. Excellent. Thought-provoking. Highly recommend it. :) Mainly to do with the genesis of the American political culture wars. We are still in the same context that Gore Vidal and William F Buckley polarized into articulation - and that continues to play out in the Climate Change 'debate'.
 
An article summarizing a study factoring in the true costs of fossil fuels and advising or "warning investors that they face risks if society ever wants to account for [societal] losses".

The Huge Hidden Costs Of Our Fossil-Fueled Economy: Oil companies may be the most profitable companies on the planet. But that's only because we let them destroy the planet for free.
LINK: The Huge Hidden Costs Of Our Fossil-Fueled Economy
TEXT: "Extracting fossil fuels is a lucrative business. Last year, ExxonMobil made $32.5 billion in profits. But, arguably, it's a business built on shaky foundations. If we were to account for the full cost of fossil fuels to the environment, it might completely wipe out the industry's profitability. That's the conclusion of a new analysis from the University of Cambridge that tallies up the social cost of producing oil, gas and coal products. Across 20 leading companies, it finds "hidden economic costs"—that is, costs that aren't currently paid—of $755 billion in 2008, and $883 billion in 2012. Which is several times what the companies reported in earned income in those years.

" 'The 20 companies as a group are highly profitable, with after‐tax profits of about 8.2 % of revenues in 2008 and 8.6 % in 2012. However this does not take account of the hidden economic cost to society that is caused when their products are burned and CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere,' says the paper by Chris Hope, Paul Gilding, and Jimena Alvarez.

"The researchers studied the accounts of major oil and gas groups like BP, Shell, Statoil, and Petrobras as well as several coal producers like Peabody and Coal India. The calculations are based on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency model that says each ton of CO2 costs society $105 (in 2008 dollars). That's higher than the working EPA figure of $37 per ton, but below what some other researchers have calculated it should be. The analysis doesn't include some major state-owned producers such as Saudi Aramco, which don't publish open public accounts.

"Most of the oil and gas companies have hidden costs of $1.5 to $3 for every dollar is post-tax profit, while costs of the coal companies range mostly from about $40 to $100 for every dollar in profit, the paper says. The coal companies are also the most "unprofitable" with economic costs ranging from two to nine times annual revenues (let alone their profits).

"The point of the paper is to warn investors that they face risks if society ever wants to account for its losses (which doesn't look likely at the moment, but still). "These results will be a useful starting point for investors seeking to manage their exposure to climate change risk, and for policy makers interested in fossil fuel companies’ net contribution to society," the authors say."
​
 
When it comes to headlines we need to be very careful & check the source of the actual data that is being reported. We recently had the same kind of announcements in the United Kingdom and trust me, this year has not been the hottest on record. What was reported was a record temperature reported at Heathrow airport, but the source of when and where this temperature was taken has been a little mystery and why it was used to demonstrate a record temperature was again, not scientific but it was reported because the same usual suspects will pickup and report it as a story. Heathrow is the busiest airport on Earth. It is on the outskirts of London. The temperature recorded was recorded at ground level on a runway area. Consider the Urban Heat Island effect here, the fact that it was a hot day, the air caked in jet fuel fumes, lots of people, planes. No person in their right mind what consider this temperature as being useful because of the urban heat island effect. Many of the temperatures reported these days are taken from weather stations that are located in terrible places, for instance in the US it was found that temperatures were being taken from very old stations which were painted black and located in car parks. These were being cherry picked and reported in the headlines. Anyone with any level of common sense knows that for a real temp to be taken certain factors must be cancelled out for a true temp, stations must be painted white and not stuck in the middle of the car park, but off away from any place which could influence it.

For my job I travel quite often the length and breadth of the UK, which is when I listen to the Paracast. On a recent trip of around 700 mile round trip, I was completely shocked by the amount of weather stations situated along the M6 and M5 motorways, two of the major roads running north and south down the country. During the trip it was cloudy and not warm, but given how busy these roads are, when the weather is hot, the heat coming off the road will have a major impact on the temperature and the closed lane to these stations is the "slow" lane, where all the freight travels. Even the heat of the freight engines would impact it. I have taken a sober and rational stance on this climate change issue for many years, I have informed myself as best I can, I whatever I find, I don't find a way to make it a serious and catastrophic issue. Yes climate changes, yes we impact this, but if we are suggesting that the CO2 we emit (remember it is plant food, plants would prefer 4000ppm and not the 400ppm we have currently) then we are adding a trace amount of gas into the atmosphere (currently 0.04% of atmosphere is CO2, we may up that to 0.05%) then what we are talking about is climate sensitivity. How sensitive is our climate to CO2 and trust me when I say this, the jury is still out on that. I think sensitivity is very low and the feedback of water vapour may actually have a cancellation effect. No matter what anyone says, climate sensitivity has not been answered and the only way for us to know what it is actually like is to monitor the climate. Over the last 20 years there has been a pause according to two satellite datasets (for those who don't believe this, just accept it has slowed down). Both scenarios strongly suggest that the sensitivity is low, if this is the case then calm down.

There are those who would use the precautionary principle in this. I don't agree this is the correct way forward. If we get the science wrong we get the policy wrong, $Trillions wasted which could have gone to saving lives elsewhere. So we must get the science right to get the policy right.

Michael
 
I'm saying..one reason that inclines me toward accepting climate change isn't that I love the corrupted left wing of the government that tells me everything that I want to hear. It's because the corrupted right wing of the government who are SO dead set against the idea are also fine with industrial pollution, deregulation of clean air and water standards, etc.
 
Imagine having to live the rest of the year on a credit card..........................

Humans have already used up 2015's supply of Earth's resources – analysis


The GFN estimates that human consumption first began to exceed the Earth’s capacity in the early 1970s and the overshoot day has been falling steadily earlier ever since, due to the growth in the global population alongside the expansion of consumption around the world.
 
When it comes to headlines we need to be very careful & check the source of the actual data that is being reported.
Exactly so.
We recently had the same kind of announcements in the United Kingdom and trust me, this year has not been the hottest on record. What was reported was a record temperature reported at Heathrow airport, but the source of when and where this temperature was taken has been a little mystery and why it was used to demonstrate a record temperature was again, not scientific but it was reported because the same usual suspects will pickup and report it as a story. Heathrow is the busiest airport on Earth. It is on the outskirts of London. The temperature recorded was recorded at ground level on a runway area. Consider the Urban Heat Island effect here, the fact that it was a hot day, the air caked in jet fuel fumes, lots of people, planes. No person in their right mind what consider this temperature as being useful because of the urban heat island effect. Many of the temperatures reported these days are taken from weather stations that are located in terrible places, for instance in the US it was found that temperatures were being taken from very old stations which were painted black and located in car parks. These were being cherry picked and reported in the headlines.
Because you are not citing sources it is difficult to know what you are talking about. For example, is your information coming from The Daily Mail, a notoriously inaccurate broadsheet? The Daily Mail would indeed be cherry-picking and reporting misleading headlines.

This is an example of the 'politics' of global warming.

It is always important to keep in mind the context for all the scientific data, and in this instance, it is global average temperature that is being discussed in the scientific literature, not individual locations, or even whole countries. Such may be experiencing cooler than normal temperatures, snow rather than rain, rain rather than dryness. That is an anticipated and predicted result of the global change in average temperature. Global average temperature has been rising steadily.
Anyone with any level of common sense knows that for a real temp to be taken certain factors must be cancelled out for a true temp, stations must be painted white and not stuck in the middle of the car park, but off away from any place which could influence it.
I think the scientists do have that common sense. You are displaying a lack of common sense if you actually believe what you are suggesting (imo) - namely, that scientists lack common sense, and you, as a layperson, have the wherewithal to anecdotally 'correct' their studies.
For my job I travel quite often the length and breadth of the UK, which is when I listen to the Paracast. On a recent trip of around 700 mile round trip, I was completely shocked by the amount of weather stations situated along the M6 and M5 motorways, two of the major roads running north and south down the country. During the trip it was cloudy and not warm, but given how busy these roads are, when the weather is hot, the heat coming off the road will have a major impact on the temperature and the closed lane to these stations is the "slow" lane, where all the freight travels. Even the heat of the freight engines would impact it.
Interesting anecdote but is not relevant to the larger issue.
I have taken a sober and rational stance on this climate change issue for many years, I have informed myself as best I can, I whatever I find, I don't find a way to make it a serious and catastrophic issue. Yes climate changes, yes we impact this, but if we are suggesting that the CO2 we emit (remember it is plant food, plants would prefer 4000ppm and not the 400ppm we have currently) then we are adding a trace amount of gas into the atmosphere (currently 0.04% of atmosphere is CO2, we may up that to 0.05%) then what we are talking about is climate sensitivity. How sensitive is our climate to CO2 and trust me when I say this, the jury is still out on that. I think sensitivity is very low and the feedback of water vapour may actually have a cancellation effect. No matter what anyone says, climate sensitivity has not been answered and the only way for us to know what it is actually like is to monitor the climate. Over the last 20 years there has been a pause according to two satellite datasets (for those who don't believe this, just accept it has slowed down). Both scenarios strongly suggest that the sensitivity is low, if this is the case then calm down.
There is some science in the above. You should explore your ideas more at science sites that genuinely discuss the science. You have not cited your sources, but I can recognize the 'facts' you are listing. Your science is off - or rather, more to the point, the way you are connecting the dots is off. You are reciting a very recognizable narrative spun by deniers. You don't know that you're off because you are accepting wholesale the 'analysis' you are reading, wherever you are reading it - website, article or book. (The whole business about CO2 being 'plant food' :rolleyes: pretty poor stuff but rampant among those reading certain - denier - information. Your repeating that 'factoid' is a dead-give-away that you haven't really penetrated the science yet).
There are those who would use the precautionary principle in this. I don't agree this is the correct way forward. If we get the science wrong we get the policy wrong, $Trillions wasted which could have gone to saving lives elsewhere. So we must get the science right to get the policy right. Michael
In this case, if the science is wrong, the result is we have cleaned up the planet (not a deleterious trade-off). So no matter what, the policies serve the best interests of the whole. No one is being injured - except the monied interests.

What the science and subsequent policies are necessitating is a change in a top-down resource driven economic model. That is where the fear-based resistance comes from. Switching the energy reliance of whole countries is causing industries to shift - but how does that translate into 'trillions wasted'? In the US there are now more sustainable energy jobs than there are fossil fuel generated jobs. Who is hurting? The fossil fuel industry. (This kind of 'suffering' ensues whenever there is a shift in an economic base - as there was, for an example, in the South of the US after our Civil War, and the southern economy in certain quarters shifted from cotton growing to tobacco growing, and yet again 100 years later when it shifted out of tobacco growing). [BTW a similar 'hardship' will be generated when the US economy shifts away from armament/gun production - but the plus is that those trillions of dollars will then go into society - but the initial impact will be hardship as the balance shifts away from an armaments industry.]

What is curious is the fact that the fossil fuel industry is a top-down economic structure, where the resource can be hoarded and controlled for maximum profits/wealth by a small number. [No freedom for the worker.] This was not the initial intention behind the energy grid - that grid was sold to the common man on the idea that it was a communal endeavor, 'owned' by all the participants - a public utility. (Something similar is taking place in the US regarding the Internet. The Internet was developed by US tax dollars and offered to the public as a common asset 'owned' by all. There is a recurring attempt to change that).

Sustainable energy is at the other end of the spectrum - it is locally controlled by it's very nature, making people free in the way they were with candles and fires. Strange that people fight this.
 
Last edited:
We need to be honest - that the 'debate' around Global Warming is rooted in issues far, far separate from anything remotely scientific. It's really an economic discussion. Yes, there is a conversation on-going in science about climate science and quantum physics and the big bang and consciousness and robotics. Yes. But what we see playing out on a chat site about paranormal activity, flying saucers and aliens (what delicious fun!) that dips into climate science and the warming of the planet is very far removed from anything remotely geeky. This a power struggle as old as the hills, with a profoundly philosophical base.

Fact is, it's not about jobs. Our future - at least in the US - is going to be an automated future. What we need are consumers - and lots and lots of them to make the wheels go round. @mike I might even say it's not about population growth. :cool: I am a keen proponent of the Basic Income Grant. It is so do-able it is scary that we have not done it yet in the US. Rather we are pouring our treasure into armaments - and exhausting ourselves into poverty as a nation as a result. (England did it during WWII). Far-flung empires never work - history is littered with over-extention and rapid decline. Who are we kidding?

Listen to Robert Reich: "Several of you have asked me why I post quotes from the 1830s, 1910s, 1930s, and 1960s and early 1970s. It’s because in those four periods Americans reasserted power over financial elites that threatened to usurp our economy and democracy.

"Unlike societies that have succumbed to fascism, communism, totalitarianism, and violent revolution when their people become frustrated and fearful, America reforms itself. That’s what we did in the 1830s when elites accrued unwarranted privileges, and we abolished property rights for voting, enabled small businesses to incorporate without legislation, and fought off a national bank; between 1901 and 1916 during the Progressive Era, when we established a progressive income tax, enacted pure food and drug laws, and split up the giant trusts; during the New Deal of the 1930s, when we created Social Security, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, a 40-hour workweek, and required employers to negotiate with labor unions; and in the 1960s and early 1970s when we enacted Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Medicare and Medicaid, the Environmental Protection Act, and the Federal Election Campaign Act.

"Another wave of fundamental reform is on its way."
​
That is what I am choosing to believe we will succeed in doing here in the US - and I am working politically to have that happen - against a powerful head-wind. Climate Change is but one aspect - though a mightily important one defining our futures, as regions, nations and a world.

Robert Reich suggests the following book. I do, too. :)

Progress and Poverty by Henry George: "This classic work is an enquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and the persistence of poverty amid advancing wealth. Published in 1879, it was admired and advocated by great minds such as Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Leo Tolstoy and Sun Yat-sen in China. Henry George lived through a period of American history which witnessed the closing of the frontier, and he noticed the dramatic deterioration in the condition of labour once that happened. While land was freely available wages were high, once it was enclosed wages fell. Adam Smith appears not to have appreciated the full consequences of this, but he was writing before their full horror became evident in the form of landless peasants crowding into city slums, seeking work in "satanic mills" at minimum wages. Henry George, observing similar events in America (he was a journalist), saw the connection between land enclosure and poverty and unemployment. He also realized that the harmful effects could be rectified, without confiscating the land, through a change in the tax system and allowing market forces to work. This classic offers an alternative ethical and practical guide at a time when the collapse of the Marxist/Socialist experiment and the deep recession in the West leave many seeking fresh inspiration."​

In the US we have a push-pull of fuzzy thinking, if not downright fantasy, around the idea of Big Government. Many currently ascribe it to Ronald Reagan's impact but it goes back much, much further.
From a review: "Progress and Poverty is actually a tour-de-force assertion of the classical liberal position that the earth and its rent are common property. It thoroughly demonstrates, with clear and rigorous logic, what Marx realized far too late in his life -- that the monopoly of capital was not a natural phenoenon, but the result of the state-created monopoly of land, through titles that allow landlords to usurp community-created rents." [Replace current modes with 'land' and 'rents', etc.]

From a review: "George debunked several myths that are still propagated today, such as that population growth causes of poverty, that it is natural for capital to employ labor, that government control can effectively remedy poverty, and, most of all, that the economic dynamics governing capital can be blindly applied to land and natural resources." ​

This is the Fossil Fuel Lobby and the Internet in another guise. Always remember: Capital has no value without the power of labor. Denmark is getting it right. What is being 'fought' in the Climate Change issue (in the US) is multi-layered.

Again from Robert Reich: "One of the most insidious myths in modern America is that people are paid what they're 'worth' - so someone earning no more than today's minimum wage is worth no more than that, while a Wall Street mogul raking in billions must be worth it because that's what he's raking in. It's a meaningless tautology that prevents us from examining whether the market is organized correctly to pay people according to their real worth in society."
​
In fact, it is the multitudes of consumers - especially, in an automated society (which we are heading towards in the US) - that create wealth. It is the consumer who needs to be 'paid what they're worth'. The Basic Income Grant :) - and fasten your seat belts for the explosion of creativity that will ensue. (This is another fallacy - that those on the dole are indolent. In fact, the wealthy receive a 'Basic Income Grant' and then some in the form of their inheritance - and massive tax breaks here in the US. It is those who have their needs met who are the risk-takers. We now have studies confirming this. While the poor scrabble (and die early) - the wealthy take risks (and live long).

I recommend reading the Amazon reviews of Henry George's book. This one is a stand-out in that it 'explains' how to read the book. ;)
"If ever there was a time when the world needed the wisdom of Henry George, it is now. His classic work, Progress and Poverty, should be required reading for anyone concerned with establishing social and economic justice in a world that seems increasingly characterized by greed.

"The Drake modernized edition makes George's unique insights accessible to those of us who struggle with the pull of conflicting demands on our time. Even so, I recommend an unorthodox approach to this book. The early chapters demand a level of concentration that might be unusual except in someone deeply committed to understanding the root cause of the growing gap between rich and poor. Therefore, start by getting your passions flowing. Read the "Publisher's Forward." Then flip to the afterword and be stirred by Agnes de Mille's answer to the question: "Who was Henry George?" Her writing is as beautiful as her dance. You may now be moved to tackle the economic theories of wages and distribution, but I suggest deferring for just a bit longer. Read the last half of the book first. Begin with Chapter 25, "The True Remedy." Once you've read through to the conclusion, the fire in your belly ought to be sufficient to carry you through the fine points of economic argument contained in the first twenty-four chapters. You won't be disappointed. As Bob Drake, Editor, notes in his preface, "Those who pick up this book are likely to share some concern about the problem of poverty; those who finish it may also find some cause for hope....It was, and still is, a plan for peace, prosperity, equality, and justice."
​
 
Last edited:
California is Withdrawing All Investment Funds from Coal Mining Companies ~ September 5, 2015
LINK: California is Withdrawing All Investment Funds from Coal Mining Companies
TEXT: "The California State Assembly passed a bill this week causing all state public employee pension funds to divest from coal, reported ThinkProgress. This bill is a huge blow to destructive coal companies that get rich from destroying the environment.

"In a landslide 43 to 27 vote, the state Assembly voted that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) must remove all holdings from companies that receive at least 50 percent of its revenue from coal mining. Collectively, CalPERS and CalSTRS are responsible for $476 billion in assets. “Coal is losing value quickly and investing in coal is a losing proposition for our retirees; it’s a nuisance to public health; and it’s inconsistent with our values as a state on the forefront of efforts to address global climate change,” said California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, who introduced the bill. “California’s utilities are phasing out coal, and it’s time our pension funds did the same.”

"The bill is now on its way to California Gov. Jerry Brown’s (D) desk, who is expected to sign it. Brown has been on the forefront of California’s fight for the environment. If consistent, small steps like this bill will eventually equal great strides in the fight against climate change."
​
 
Citibank warns about the cost of climate inaction
LINK: Citibank warns about the cost of climate inaction.
TEXT: "Taking action on climate change is vital to the survival of our species, and it's essential to the economic future of our nation's banks.

"According to a new report from Citibank, failure to act on global warming will cost $44 trillion dollars more than investing in low-carbon energy solutions. To create that report, called “Energy Darwinism,” researchers analyzed the likely cost of energy in the coming decades and the cost of the “negative effects” of our changing climate.

"Rather than focusing on the state of our environment or the impact on our survival, the report focused solely on the financial aspects of global warming.

"Jason Channell, Global Head of Alternative Energy and Cleantech Research at Citibank, said, “What we're trying to do is to take an objective view at the economics of the situation and actually look at what the costs of not acting are, if the scientists are right.” He added, “There is a cost to not doing this, and although there is a cost to acting, what we're trying to do is to actually weigh up the different costs here.”

"It doesn't matter whether you believe that humans cause global warming. But it does matter that our planet is changing and we had better get busy figuring out how to cover the cost of surviving those changes."
​
 
Does Citibank have a stake in the global warming (AGW) hypothesis? Yes. Investments. Banks are likely to make massive amounts of money when investing in solar and alternative energy systems. You cant rely on any other person out there to do your own thinking for you. It doesn't matter if every single business on Earth tells us that AGW is real, when people have an investment in something they will automatically support the business side of it, money & cash.

It is the same with Al Gore. The guy pushing publically for climate change policy who just happened to setup the Chicago carbon exchange, who was due to become the worlds first CO2 billionaire. It is just lucky I guess that his business falls in line with his climate beliefs because surely he wouldn't push for policy only to benefit him financially. But again Gore being a complete hypocrite, sold his TV company to Qatar, an oil exporter that has despicable human rights violations. Actually Al Gore lifestyle is a test case for the credibility of his gospel - and it fails. The tolerance of Al Gores lifestyle by the environmental leadership is a further test, and that test too the greens fail.

People also have to consider that predictions that have been made over the last 20 years, none of them have actually come true. CO2 does not collate with temperature over geological time, ice cores reveal the temp rise way before the CO2 FOLLOWS

upload_2015-9-11_14-0-6.png


I am currently reading "A Disgrace to the Profession" by Mark Steyn. Forgetting for the moment that he has been taken to court by the illustrious Michael E Mann for calling his Hockey Stick fraudulent in a blog post, his book is most revealing and is a must read for people on either side of this debate. The book is about scientists, climate scientists from both sides speaking about Michael Mann. The guy is not well liked, his reputation as a scientists is terrible and the fact he uses his influence on the AGW to bully journals and journalists, he attempts to get tenured professors fired for disagreeing with him. In fact, that man is such a coward, he will not speak, debate or appear on a radio or TV show unless every single person there agrees with him and thinks his hockey stick is wonderful.

He is a thin skinned bully who refuses to engage in any dialogue with anyone unless they treat him as a saint. This lines up very nicely with the wording of his court order against Steyn when he called himself a Nobel prize winner, when he is certainly not.

The weakness of his science and the way he has spliced and fixed his data sets is almost beyond belief, this one of the fundamental tenants of the AGW theory, the Hockey Stick that appeared in all of the recent IPCC reports, the graph that was sent out to each Canadian family to sell the global warming meme, the graph that was seen prominently in Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth which was rammed down the throats of all the school children in the united kingdom is based on the most flawed science I have ever seen. The question becomes, if the evidence is so strong, why the hell do they need to make it up?

Mark Steyn counter sued Michael E Mann for $30 Million. That way, when his flawed, junk science comes to the fore and he tries to settle out of court, Mark Steyn will stick up his two fingers and say, time for the court case. During that court case, Michael Mann's Hockey Stick will be torn apart, the science will be shown in a court of law to be utterly baseless. I cant wait for this day to come and when it does a mainstay of this climate change alarmism will have been destroyed, the rest of this utterly stupid hypothesis will be torn down and normality will hopefully reign.

Rant over.
Michael Harris
 
I could not help but add this to my increasing list of predictions about this terrible ice loss. What we have below is a demonstration of how this bogus crisis spreads like a virus through the web. The link is below but I am going to put in the actual screenshots too.

The final screenshot is of Dr James Hansen, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute who has repeatedly made predictions so ludicrous that they have 0% chance of becoming reality in our physical universe. He has been wrong on every single prediction he ever made but although his predictions are posted at large newspapers of the day, his failures never seem to be published in those very same newspapers or websites. Its a bias of positive reporting and I have a list of other predictions this man has made, all of them insane.
This year has seen the shortest ice melt period in our records which will mean a rapid increase of ice build up in the next couple of years. At this current stage in 2015 there is more ice at our poles than any time since we started recording this data with satellites since 1979. This is not the profile of melting glaciers as so many arctic and Antarctic explorers have found over the last few years when their huge ships have become trapped in ice that was not supposed to be there according to the UN. Perhaps they need to leave their warm office in New York and actually travel to the places that they lie about each day.

Shortest Melt Season On Record In The Arctic? | Real Science

upload_2015-9-11_15-15-51.png

upload_2015-9-11_15-16-17.png

upload_2015-9-11_15-16-38.png

upload_2015-9-11_15-16-55.png

upload_2015-9-11_15-17-14.png

upload_2015-9-11_15-17-34.png
 
What follows is a post I have taken from another thread where Global Warming is discussed as a fact, not a debate. It is a post out-of-place on that thread, so I have brought it over here. It is a good example of either willful disregard for accuracy or plain-and-simple an uninformed stance.

Again, the Global Warming temperature rise is a global average - not a reflection of a single region's experience. The below graph is suggesting that the present global average temperature is somehow equivalent to whatever was going on in a particular region of the earth at a particular long-ago time - in this case, in Europe during the Middle Ages. The below graph, if we are to understand what @icculus is trying to say, is attempting to put on equivalent footing a regional event (from the past) with a global event (in the present). It's not an equivalent comparison - regional vs global. The graph is misleading.



In the end, all discussion of the science is fruitless (and is why I prefer not to go down that road) because most people are simply not schooled in either the science or the rigorous analysis demanded, as demonstrated above. Very poor reasoning can easily waylay an ignorant populace. It's not for nothing that there is a significant move in the US (successful in some states, like Wisconsin) to dismantle the university system. Oligarchy cannot be sustained with an educated and informed populace.

In the US our investigative reporting has been all but crushed in the mainstream media. Lo! the Internet arises and we have substantial investigative reporting happening via other avenues. It's not for nothing that there continues to be a serious attempt to 'privatize' the Internet in the US.

We are, indeed, living in interesting times.

Fair enough. As you pointed out I'm clearly not an expert in the climate system of the Earth, who is? However, those are some pretty enormous swings in temperature, and yes they are from Greenland, but there are others from around the world that directly correlate with these deltas. The thread you pulled these from was regarding having Randall Carlson on as a guest. Would love to see some debate on this subject when he appears.
 
Fair enough. As you pointed out I'm clearly not an expert in the climate system of the Earth, who is? However, those are some pretty enormous swings in temperature, and yes they are from Greenland, but there are others from around the world that directly correlate with these deltas. The thread you pulled these from was regarding having Randall Carlson on as a guest. Would love to see some debate on this subject when he appears.

No, it was the 'What World Under Climate Change' thread. Just to be clear.
 
@mike_thoth You are starting to flood this thread with posts focusing on the science - this is a thread about the politics, not the science. There are oodles of threads debating the science, one that even has 'politics' and 'science' in the title, such as -

LINK: The Science and Politics of Global Warming

But I don't think you are really interested in the conversation. Your posts are riddled with very ancient denier arguments. So old that you're even referencing Al Gore, and like in those long ago days, you are having a go at some ad hominems. Tiresome. Too old to bother. The world has moved on.
 
When we talk about ice melt and ice growth are we talking glaciers or are we talking water surface ice?

This is not a thread debating the science. It's a thread dedicated to the politics of human-induced global warming, which has to do with the deniers as a phenomenon, nothing to do with the science, per se. Just saying. A thread can be easily swamped with the denier 'debate' stuff.
 
I see people have told me about the science should not be debated on this thread and this is fair enough. I will need to stop posting links to this. Regarding the politics, what is this phrase "Climate Change Denier" actually used for? It is not scientific, its actually a very mean spirited phrase meant to link people like me to deniers of the holocaust. There is little use for the phrase at any level and for me what it does reveal is ignorance, ignorance of the methods, reasons and perspectives behind people like me, and what drives us. I see no reason whatever why reasonable, honest & friendly debate can not take place between people. I find it atrocious that on an issue where so much is at stake people cant simply shelve the anger and listen. Climate Denier is what the Scientist Michael E Mann calls anyone who disagrees with him. Even people on his side of the debate are called this by Mann on a regular basis. I am one of over 230,000 people who he has blocked on twitter. He like many of his followers and supporters does not wish to hear any dissenting voices, indeed Mann wont even speak on a radio show unless everyone in attendance is on his side and no one dare ask a question of him. Lets look at the politics of this. Where is the political support for this, is it on the side of alarm or the sceptical side? Considering the Paris deal at the end of the year the power is clearly on the side of alarm. What about financially, does the money come to sceptics or does it go in favour of alarm? The rough estimate is that $4billion a day is spent on climate change alarm. What about propaganda or TV? Is this on the side of alarm or scepticism? Consider all the movies in cinemas the overall left wing environmentalism of nearly all Hollywood finds it way on TV, almost all mainstream newspapers have bought and endorsed alarm from the very start, the London Guardian being the most left wing and most ardent environmental newspaper. So considering all of this, why is the public not convinced?

Well the reason I think is obvious. They are tired, tired of all the dire predictions that never seem to come true. They remember as I do that in the past a warm summer was, just that, a summer that was warm. If the winter was cold, like during the first years after my own birth, then that was what winter sometimes did, it was a slow climate change. Now we live in a world where predictions from whale migration patterns to any increase is stolen cars can now be attributed to man made climate chance. John Kerry claims that ISIS coming to power had something to do with Global warming & not the fact that this group had been trained in Jordan by US, French and UK commanders using money from Qatar? Money these days is spent on more and more science that is bought an paid for by government.

One of the major dangers I see in this political belief system that has grown out of all proportion is the funding of science by government sources. Dwight Eisenhower's much famed address to the nation is quoted often by people talking about the military industrial complex. But people should listen to the whole speech because he addresses this issue very well indeed. When you have a scientific elite that become totally dependant on government funding, bad things can and will happen. Now this is in 1961 but he had already understood the dangers of this system and the corruption to science itself. People tow the line and the scientists will ensure they get more funding by providing the answers the feed the system. If people here think this is how science in any country should be ran then fine, but currently in western nations only (2nd and 3rd world countries have bigger problems on their plate than trying to solve a non problem by stopping a trace gas) science itself guarantees renewal of funding each year by claiming the problem is "worst than we thought" and by doing Michael Mann levels of data manipulation and splicing to come up with more and more crazy stories using more and more outdated computer models. 30 years ago you couldn't get funding to study the affects of global warming on drug trafficking or weather redheads will die out. Today you can and that is scary.
 
What we call the science of climate change is in of itself a political event, as much as an economic event. Much of what we call reality has always been manipulated or ameliorated by variou$ belief sy$tems who have their own agendas. But rarely do I hear from those who believe that the planet itself is simply worth doing things for because it is a living thing that hosts us and recycles us?
 
Back
Top